Thursday, October 1, 2015

What Did Mormon Mean “Giddianhi and the Band of Robbers”? PtII

As stated in
the previous post, there is much to learn from the incidental dialogue and
events found within the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon. As shown in
the last post, the incident of Giddianhi’s letter to Lachoneus (left) has numerous
pieces of information.Take, for
instance, his statement: “I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding
of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government” (3
Nephi 3:10).The concept
of propaganda came into its own during World War II, as practiced by the German
Nazi movement. After the War, it was given a huge shot in the arm by Soviet
Communism. Early on, the communists learned that they could confuse issues
among countries by their use of their “enemies” language and taking
good-sounding, positive words and using them for their nefarious,
anti-government schemes and organizations. Take for example:

World Federation
of Democratic YouthInternational
Union of StudentsWorld
Federation of Trade UnionsWomen’s
International Democratic FederationWorld Peace CouncilAmerican
Peace CommitteeAbraham
Lincoln BrigadeDemocratic
Cultural LeagueAssociation
of the Victims of the Nazi RegimeAmerican
Council for a Democratic UnionAmerican
PatriotsAmerican
Peace CrusadeCommittee to
Abolish DiscriminationPeople’s
Educational AssociationHawaii Civil
Liberties Committee All of the above, and scores of other such names were those of Communist front organizations within the United States. All used American positive words to form their iniquitous organizations. In fact, in
1955, the Attorney General’s Office issued a list of over 300 communists, Nazi,
Japanese and Italian wartime and peacetime organizations that were
anti-American, with names that used positive English words to describe them in order to avoid the real intent of the organization and its members.

Hiding one’s real intentions behind one’s
back, while presenting a friendly facadeAll of this
is based on the age-old concept in war that the aggressor always pretends to be peace-loving
because he would like to achieve his conquests without bloodshed. To accomplish
this, the aggressors must always be presented as a defensive reaction by the
aggressor nation." Nobody ever attacks. You're always just on the
defensive. After
World War I, the German War Office, Kriegsamt, changed its name to Wehrmact,
"defense power." The United States changed our War Office to the
Department of Defense. Every nation has a Defense department running its
military today--there are no war offices. All
countries are just defensive now, that's all. Both sides in a war claim to be
taking the defensive position, whether they are aggressors or not. We see good
examples in the Book of Mormon in the case of Giddianhi and Lachoneus.
Giddianhi writes to Lachoneus, "We wouldn't bother you except you're
infringing on our rights of government, our ancient society, which is old and
venerable and you've been the aggressor against us." Of
course, the point could be argued since the loser must always submit to the
winner, each side is always fighting for its freedom. Under the laws of ancient
Israel, Bernard S. Jackson, Professor of Law at the University of
Kent-Canterbury and editor of Jewish Law Annual, shows how robbers
usually acted in organized groups rivaling local governments and attacking
towns and how they swore oaths and extorted ransom, a menace worse than
outright war. Thieves, however, were a much less serious threat to society. According
to recent studies, the details of these ancient legal and linguistic
distinctions are observable in the Book of Mormon. While there is only a little
difference between a thief and a robber in most modern minds, there were
considerable differences between the two under ancient Near Eastern Law. A
thief (ganab) was usually a local
person who stole from his neighbor. He was dealt with judicially, tried and
punished civilly, most often by a court composed of his fellow townspeople.

A robber
(gazel), on the other hand, was treated
as an outsider, as a brigand, or highwayman. He was dealt with militarily, and
he could be summarily executed. It can
also stand as a testament to Joseph Smith’s accurate translation in describing
the Gadianton robbers, who he always referred to as robbers (3 Nephi 3:12),
though it is very likely that an Anglo-Saxon westerner would have substituted
thief or thieves in this sense, since the later western interpretations of the
Bible often substituted “thief” for “robber.” In fact, in the Book of Mormon,
Joseph Smith translated the original manuscript had Gaddianton with two “d”s,
and the Gadianton band like “gedud” from the original Hebrew. Had Joseph relied
on the language of the King James Bible, he likely would have stumbled into
error.It is
also why we find in the Book of Mormon that Laban calls Nephi and his brothers
“robbers” and threatens to execute them on the spot without a trial, for that
is how a military officer like Laban would have dealt with a robber. It is also
why the Lamanites are alays said to “rob” from the Nephites, but never from
their own brethren—that would be “theft,” not “robbery.“ And also why the
Gadiantan society are always called “robbers” and never “thieves.”It also
gives us another insight into the statement “Now behold, this
Lachoneus, the governor, was a just man, and could not be frightened by the
demands and the threatenings of a robber; therefore he did not hearken to the
epistle of Giddianhi, the governor of the robbers” (3 Nephi 3:12) since
Lachoneus could not be frightened by a “robber.”

This understanding
also allows us to better comprehend why Laban was to be killed, since the
Spirit of the Lord directed Nephi to slay Laban because he was a robber and, at
heart, a murderer. He had robbed the sons of Lehi of the property they had
taken to him in their effort to exchange it for the records, and had afterwards
sought their lives. One last thought on this, when the Gadianton robbers threatened
Nephite society, apparently the Nephite governor Lachoneus called upon everyone
under his jurisdiction ("all of them that were numbered among the
Nephites"--3 Nephi 3:14) to gather together and to take up arms to defend
themselves. This included those people of Lamanite lineage. These Lamanites
were "all who had become converted unto the Lord and united with the
Nephites (3 Nephi 2:12). Thus it seems that the "Lamanite" armies
that fought the robbers were Lamanites living within Nephite boundaries, and
who considered themselves politically numbered among the Nephites. In 3 Nephi
2:11 it is mentioned that the Gadianton robbers had become so numerous,
"and did spread so much death and carnage throughout the land, that it
became expedient that all the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites,
should take up arms against them." The robbers were made up at least in
part of Nephite dissenters (3 Nephi 2:28) and "some Lamanites" who
"were led away by some who were Zoramites, by their lyings and their
flattering words" (3 Nephi 2:29). It seems clear that the reader should be
careful to distinguish whether Mormon is referring to "lineage Lamanites"
or "political Lamanites." This concept is brought out clearly after
the war when Mormon refers to the robbers who had been defeated by the
Nephites. He says that those robbers who desired to "remain
Lamanites" were granted "lands according to their numbers" (3
Nephi 6:3).

3 comments:

It has always been my understanding that according to the Law of Moses.. robbery was punishable by death... where by thievery was not. The reason for this.. is that in a robbery.. one life is almost always threaten.. and that is what makes it robbery vs thievery.

So as an example.. under the Law of Moses.. Laban did indeed commit robbery of Nephi's family possessions by not only taking them.. but also threatening him with death. And since robbery was punishable by death under the Law.. the Lord was the judge and jury of Laban... and Nephi became the executioner. That is why Laban was delivered into the hands of Nephi and Nephi was instructed to take his life. That is what made it right.. as it was under the Law. And Laban knew the law.. and tried to use it by saying first.. that Laman was the robber. And that is why he could kill him... And who would doubt him?